How Much Does it Cost?
The 9700X is launching for $359 which is a small decrease from the 7700X’s original launch price of $399. This equates to a 10% decrease in price, which would be great if the performance of the 9700X reflected anything other than what we’ve seen, but sadly that’s not the case, and while the price is good, it’s not representative of the performance that’s on offer, and I feel that’s going to be a huge sticking point for a lot of consumers, especially those who are already rocking a Ryzen 7000 series because based on the uplift, or lack thereof, there’s no reason to upgrade.
If you decide that the 9700X is for you, then you can pick one up from here, though there is one big thing to consider and that is with any new product, you’re going to be expected to pay the early adopter tax, but on the flipside, the price of older products, and namely being the Ryzen 7 7700, will end up seeing the price reduce in the coming months, so for those on a strict budget, there’s an opportunity to essentially get the same processor, but for even less money.
Conclusion
So, where do I start with wrapping this up? I’m at a bit of a loss because this is meant to be the next generation, and it just doesn’t feel like it is. This feels like much of the same. I would have actually been happy if AMD called this the 7700 XT or Ryzen 7 7750X or something because the increase in IPC and other refinements just don’t do enough to warrant it being a new generation, or the next generation of products. It just falls a bit flat in that sense, and it seems that AMD are potentially happy about taking that stance in terms of marketing not only this CPU, but the complete line-up.
I always thought that the specs of this were a little out there. The fact that the clock speed is 700MHz lower than its predecessor is an odd move, and it seems that AMD are happy to focus on the energy efficiency side, instead of honoring a reason for consumers to actually go out and buy it, because I can tell you now, energy is an important factor, but it is never at the forefront of a gamer or enthusiasts mind. That is solely reserved for performance and cost.
Now speaking of cost, it’s always worth looking at the overall averages and the cost per frame, because that’s where you can really get a full picture as to what’s going on with things. It’s here where in terms of average FPS across the 13 games that the 9700X comes in just over 4% faster, which after talking and liaising with other media, that’s not too far off from what they have and obviously will be game dependent, but it seems that even then, the range is from between 1% faster and 4% or so faster, so at least we know we’re right on the money for that.
The thing that isn’t right on the money however, is the pricing in terms of cost per frame. The 7700X, admittedly isn’t the new kid on the block, but is the CPU that is being superseded comes in with a cost per frame of $1.89, which is pretty impressive when you consider that the likes of the i7 14700K comes in at $2.38 per frame, and while the 9700X does beat that, at $2.25 per frame, I just feel that it’s too much considering how much extra performance you don’t really get.
Like I mentioned earlier, you will be paying the early adopter tax with any new product, but generally you also pay more but get more, and with this, it’s just not there. Heck, you could save money if you’re still on AM4 by simply upgrading to a 5800X3D and getting that extra performance from what you’re on now and still come in cheaper than buying a 9700X along with a new motherboard and DDR5 memory.
There’s certainly choices to be made right now, and I think the clear one for AMD is to drop the price of the 9700X to a maximum of $320, ideally even lower than that. Then there’s an argument for buying it based on the relative performance, because in all honesty, apart from a CPU that’s going to run a bit more efficiently, I don’t feel like you’re getting anything else for your money over a Ryzen 7000 series CPU, so maybe it’s back to the drawing board for AMD on this one.
